From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Sat Feb 19 2005 - 10:16:18 EST
Hi Hans, yes, I see the distinction you make now. Thanks, howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hans G. Ehrbar" <ehrbar@LISTS.ECON.UTAH.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Thursday, February 17, 2005 9:55 AM Subject: [OPE-L] Marx's Form of Analysis > Howard, > > you wrote that, if love "is causally efficacious it gets > manifested." With value it is almost the other way > around. Value can only then be fully causally efficacious > if it gets manifested in money. > > I meant the analogy with a love relationship as follows. > Love relations are invisible, and wedding rings are the > visible manifestation of love relations. Lovers know what > to do with each other whether or not they wear wedding > rings, but one might argue that a wedding ring signals to > *others* whether a given person is engaged in an invisible > love relationship. This gives information to those others > about how to behave, and in this way also helps preserve the > love relationship. > > The wedding rings, therefore, to some extent aid in the > causal efficacy of love relationships, but they are not > absolutely central. Now for value relations the exterior > form of appearance is much more crucial. Value relations > cannot properly exist without money, i.e., without their > form of appearance. This is why the development of the > commodity form parallels that of the value form, as Marx > points out both in sect 3 of chapter 1 and in chapter 2 of > Capital. > > For those who have time and patience to read a longer > passage, the rest of this email may help clarify some more > the relation between the causal powers of value and its form > of appearance. What follows now is a slightly abbreviated > excerpt from the file > > http://www.econ.utah.edu/ehrbar/valmat.pdf > > which is also part of the package of my Annotations > > http://www.econ.utah.edu/ehrbar/screen.zip > > > > Since in principle every use-value can be exchanged against > every other (as long as the exchange proportions are > right), Marx concludes that for the purpose of these > exchange relations, each use-value is as good as any other; > the only difference is a quantitative one. In a manuscript > published in MEGA II/6, p. 4, Marx writes: > > > One commodity looks now like any other. All that remains > > is the same ghostlike *materiality* of what? Of > > *undifferentiated human labor*, i.e., of *expenditure of > > human labor-power*, without regard to the particular > > useful determinate form of its expenditure. These things > > no longer represent anything at all except that in their > > production human labor-power has been expended, human > > labor has been accumulated. As crystals of this social > > substance which they have all in common they are -- > > *values*. > > This value materiality is rarely mentioned by modern > commentators of Marx. They are too embarrassed. Even Marx > himself got in trouble for it. The first edition of > Capital MEGA II/5, p. 30, described the quality of this > materiality with the following words: > > > In order to fix linen as material expression of mere > > human labor, one must disregard everything that actually > > makes it an object. The materiality of human labor that > > is itself abstract, lacking further quality and content, > > is, of necessity, an abstract materiality, a *thing made > > of thought*. Thus, cloth woven from flax becomes a > > phantom spun by the brain. > > This vivid and memorable passage did not make it in the > second edition, presumably because, at the GDR-editors of > MEGA surmised, it might have ``raised doubts about the > materialist character of value theory'' MEGA II/6, p. 23*. > > Ironically Marx was rejected where he was most realist. > The apparatus of Critical Realism can clarify things, since > it allows us to frame Marx's ideas in a more systematic and > less metaphorical way. This requires the following steps: > > (1) If people exchange their commodities following a > consistent and predictable pattern of exchange proportions, > then they respond to, and also reproduce or transform, an > invisible network of social relations involving these > commodities, which Marx calls the ``exchange relation'' of > the commodities. Of course, the decisions what to exchange > for what are individual decisions, but the proportions in > which these things can be exchanged are determined > socially. Critical realists are used to the idea that > invisible social relations are real, they do not need to > resort to words like ``ghostlike'' or ``phantom spun by the > brain'' to refer to their reality. > > (2) These exchange relations, which prescribe the > proportions to the individual agents in which they can > exchange their wares, can be described by a metric or a > numeraire. One knows all there is to know about the status > of these relations if one knows how many units of a certain > fixed numeraire commodity can be exchanged for each given > commodity. (This step is expressed by Marx with his > example of the polygons.) > > (3) Besides assuming that the exchange relations themselves > are real and irreducible to the individuals, Marx also > assumes that this abstraction of the many motley pairwise > relationships down to a common denominator is a *real* > abstraction. This gives an interesting twist to the > ontology of social relations. Marx assumes that there is > some real substance in each commodity which is measured by > this numeraire. This substance is the commodity's > ``value.'' We know it is real because it has causal > effects. > > (4) The next step is in tune with one central aspect of CR > which tends to get overlooked. In RTS, p. 14 (1997 > edition), Bhaskar says that generative mechanisms are the > ways of acting of *things*. We have found an obviously > active generative mechanism, it is the value residing in > the commodities, which generates the exchange relations > between commodities. But we still have to find the *thing* > whose activity drives this generative mechanism. Marx uses > the word ``value materiality'' (Wertgegenstaendlichkeit) > for this thing. The expectation that such a thing exists > is expressed in Marx's seemingly simple-minded utterances > such as ``So far no chemist has ever discovered > exchange-value in pearl or diamond'' in MEW 23, p. 98. > > > (5) The search for such a value materiality has mixed success: > > o No common substance can be found in the physical bodies of > the commodities themselves. > > o the production processes from which these commodities > spring have a physical, tangible commonality: all such > production processes are the expenditures of human > labor-power. > > o But unlike the concrete labor, which is materialized in > the use-value of the product, this other aspect of the > production process is not reflected in the physical makeup > of the commodity iself. > > This is why Marx concludes that this value materiality is > purely social. One might think that we did not make any > progress, since we did not find an objective basis. Marx > says for instance that as value, the commodity represents > nothing except that labor is materialized in it. Although > this is a social driving force rather than one connected > with the body of the commodity, it is sufficient to explain > the causal powers of value. Somebody has produced this > commodity, and that person will watch over it that he or > she receives reward for the labor placed in that commodity. > I.e., society remembers how much abstract labor was placed > in that commodity, even if this fact is not inscribed in > the physical body of the commodity itself. > > (6) This is not yet the end of the story. Although the > purely social value materiality suffices to provide the > causal nexus which anchors the values of the commodities > and therefore keeps their exchange-relations in place, it > is insufficient for the practical activity of the commodity > producers. These commodity producers are in the following > dilemma: they put their labor into a product which they > cannot use, and go to the market in order to exchange their > product for something they can use. One might say that > they try to pull the value materiality out of their product > in order to make it useful for them. Since this value > materiality is purely social, they must hunt after it in > the social relations of commodity to commodity, see MEW 23, > p. 62. In section three of chapter one of *Capital*, Marx > shows that the inner dialectic of the value relations will > not rest until an independent material form of existence > has been developed for this social value materiality -- in > money. In this way, the search for a tangible value > materiality, which is separate from the use-value of the > commodities, comes to fruition. > > > (7) With this independent body serving as center and > reference point, the causal powers of value evolve into the > overwhelming vampire-like self-activity of capital. Marx > describes here a process of emergence, in which the needs > of circulation unwittingly activate a powerful generative > mechanism, which previously lay disarmed for lack of a > tangible value materiality. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Feb 19 2005 - 00:00:01 EST